Must trial counsel raise novel constitutional challenges to avoid ineffective assistance claims? State v. Brocksmith Explained

In State v. Brocksmith, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial counsel’s failure to raise constitutional challenges to Utah’s Measurable Amount Statute constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The case provides important guidance on the limits of counsel’s duty to pursue novel legal theories.

Background and Facts

Brocksmith was driving when his SUV veered into oncoming traffic, causing serious bodily injury to occupants of another vehicle. After admitting marijuana use “over the weekend,” police obtained a warrant for a blood draw that revealed THC presence. The State charged him under Utah Code section 58-37-8(2)(g)–(h)(ii), which criminalizes operating a motor vehicle negligently while knowingly having a measurable amount of controlled substances in one’s system. During trial, Brocksmith orally moved to dismiss, arguing the statute lacked a “causal nexus” between substance presence and the accident, but provided no legal authority or specific constitutional basis.

Key Legal Issues

On appeal, Brocksmith claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to adequately raise three constitutional challenges: violation of Utah’s uniform operation of laws clause, unconstitutional vagueness, and lack of a required causation element. The court first addressed whether any issues were preserved, then analyzed the ineffective assistance claim under the Strickland standard.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found none of the constitutional challenges were properly preserved because Brocksmith failed to provide supporting legal authority to the trial court. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court applied the principle that “counsel cannot be faulted for failing to advance a novel legal theory which has never been accepted by the pertinent courts.” Brocksmith failed to cite any legal authority existing at the time of trial that would have prompted a reasonable attorney to raise these constitutional challenges.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important boundaries for ineffective assistance claims. While attorneys may need to raise constitutional challenges supported by existing precedent, they are not required to pursue every conceivable novel argument. The ruling emphasizes that defendants claiming ineffective assistance based on failure to raise legal challenges must demonstrate that existing law at the time of trial supported the proposed argument.